The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,751 to 3,800 of 3,805 << first < prev | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:
Casters>Martials. This will always be true.

If CR 10 > CR 10, rather than CR 10 = CR 10, then the entire mathematical basis of the game is meaningless, and the mechanical rules are essentially without value. We'd be better off just making stuff up off the top of our heads -- which, as I've mentioned, is exactly what I think most people who "don't see a problem" actually DO.

An attempt to make CR 10 = CR 10 is an attempt to make the game work on BOTH levels: the mathematical underpinnings as well as the overlying story.

I would argue that an intelligently played CR9 Vampire is a much greater threat to a party than an intelligently played CR10 Fire Giant. Then again, maybe that just proves the point of this thread, because the abilities that make a Vampire more dangerous are things like Dominate, Greater Invisibility, energy drain -- i.e. spells, SLAs, and supernatural abilities.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Rightbackatya wrote:


Casters>Martials. This will always be true. Even reduced list casters are still casters. Arguing the fighter against a class that uses wisdom to cast spells doesn't make fair comparison. None of this changes that it's up to the player to accommodate the weaknesses of their class. Otherwise you put an 18 in your main stat and who cares about the rest.

Why are you wasting feats on boosting intimidate. It's the easiest de-buff to get in the game by just putting ranks into it.

One class cannot be good at everything. Every class has weaknesses. I've seen arguments like yours everywhere on these boards and every time someone posts a build that accommodates the weakness the goal posts change to incorporate another weakness not accounted for. This isn't a good representation. The will saves were the thing in question here and now you've turned it to incorporate reflex saves compared to a ranger.

EDIT: Using the stat array above the fighter with iron will has Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +4 at level 1. The Ranger has Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +2. REF +5 by switching dex and str if you use bows which also reduces damage.

1) I don't think there's any reason it should be true that casters are always greater than martials. I think the Barbarian also disproves that point, and the Cavalier can do a competent job of emulating effects normally reserved for casters, like buffing and improving party action economy.

2) My stance has always been that the Fighter is incomplete. He doesn't have as many "points", if you will, as any other class. You can lay him side by side with any other class and quickly see that he just flat out has less stuff. That's one of the points of my statement above; when you start spending resources to shore up weaknesses instead of getting better at stuff, you're falling behind the curve. The Fighter is spending resources to try and get to a level that everyone else is starting at.

3) You keep making these level 1 comparisons. Nobody here cares. Everyone has already said that the Fighter is best during levels 1-5 and his weaknesses are least visible at that point. Every level past that he dips further and further behind and that resource he spent becomes a smaller and smaller return on investment.

4) "Someone's going to be the worst" isn't a good reason to fix a problem that's been identified. Nor is "Well, yeah, it's missing a wheel, but some of us have learned to live with unicycles, sooo...."
Flick through the thread. I've very actively made suggestions for ways to fix the current Fighter without creating power creep in other classes while addressing the Fighter's core issues, like poor skills and crappy saves. I posted up 8 proposed feats a few pages back that could give the Fighter equitable return on investment, make weak class abilities stronger, and bring him up to snuff without pushing him beyond other classes and staying within the same design principles Paizo follows.

This isn't b&@!@ing needlessly or shifting goalposts. This is players and GM's who have seen and experienced the issues first-hand coming up with options and solutions for how to address them while trying to explain basic mathematics to people whose contributions often amount to "1st level Fighters roxxorz mah boxxorz!" and "So what if it's broken? Isn't it the wizard/cleric/bard's job to bring the wheelbarrow?"

It shouldn't be enough that the Fighter can get by. Any NPC class can get by, a lot of people expect more from their heroes. It is possible, within the system we all currently play in, to give the Fighter more without changing any of the current dynamics. His feats just need to be elevated to a level that when he takes one, he's getting the same equivalence back for his resource expenditure as everyone else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Cheburn -- Exactly. If spells are always >> everything else, the full scope of the game cannot function on a mathematical/mechanical level, only on a story level, in which the mechanics are often at odds with the story.

I think it's a relict of playtesting 3.0 only to about 3rd level or so.

My sense is that the relative value of things needs to be fixed so that the CR system works so that "level-appropriate encounter" is actually a meaningful concept. Then we could have cool tactical stuff and cool stories both, without the DM having to work overtime against the system to make that work.


137ben wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:
A level 10 character < CR 10 creature. This still has no bearing on casters>martial. Disparity has always existed and it gets worse with level.
In pathfinder a level 10 character with full WBL is supposedly CR 10.

When designing encounters you go by the APL/CR tables. Average challenge is APL=CR. This assumes a party of 4-5. 2-3 players is APL-1. Nothing is listed for 1 player, but you could guess at APL-2. So an average challenge for a level 10 character alone is CR 8. CR 9 is a challenging fight, CR 10 is an hard encounter. Terrain can also adjust the CR of an encounter.


A very simple fighter fix is to give them even more bonus feats. Some of the chains, if they were one feat, would be decent.

You could give fighters a super-linear feat progression, where they get a bonus feat each level equal to the number of fighter levels they have.

It's a brute-force solution that leads to most fighters taking greater-weapon-focus multiple times, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Getting more feats has diminishing returns, so giving enough feats to actually compensate for that may help remedy the situation.

In this case, the fighter would get 210 bonus feats by level 20. An absurd amount, but I feel like a level 20 fighter could stand to be a little absurd. EDIT: I would like to point out how a specialist Wizard with 30 int has 5/8/8/7/7/7/7/6/6/6 slots which translates to a possible 67 different spells prepared at once.

NOTE: Magic items let you qualify for feats. The PF iconic fighter does this for TWF. This could help the combat-expertise hurdle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
many words

1) There isn't a reason it should be true, but it is true. How do martials emulate teleportation, time stop, creating fire out of nothing, or any other ridiculous spell. At high end the wizard gates in creatures he bribes and has his own fighter/barbarian/"insert needs here". It's not that it should be the way it is it's just that's the way the mechanics work. The trade off I think is how dependent those casters can be on other classes in the early levels to keep them alive by being meat shields although some classes are well balanced to survive alone like rangers, paladins, bards, inquisitors. In my opinion it's the middle row casters that have the most balance with martials being more effective at the early levels and waning towards the end with the opposite to be said of full casters except the power creep of casters climbs way faster than the decline of martials. So a martial can still be okay towards the end and have a place, but without magic you're in trouble.

2) Fighters gain versatility through feats and access to full chains earlier than other classes. This is one of their bonuses above others. Arguing about "points" with no baseline isn't really solving anything and is just pushing your opinion on others.

3) Thanks for the insult.

Fighter 20; 20pt buy; Human

STR 14+2 > +4 from levels, +6 belt = 28
DEX 14 > +6 belt = 20
CON 14 > +6 belt = 20
INT 10
WIS 15 > +1 from levels, +6 belt = 22
CHA 7

cloak of resistance +5
Iron will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude (still has 19 feats)

Fort +25, Ref +16, Will +19(+24 vs fear)

Ranger 20; 20pt buy; Human

STR 14 > +2 from levels, +6 belt = 22
DEX 15+2 > +3 from levels, +6 belt = 26
CON 14 > +6 belt = 20
INT 10 >
WIS 14 > +6 belt = 20
CHA 8 >

cloak of resistance +5
Iron will, lightning reflexes, great fortitude (still has 13 feats)

Fort +24, Ref +25, Will +18

So the ranger has worse fort and will, but a much higher reflex due to the good save AND being a bow or finesse dex build. Probably a spell to overcome the deficit. He gets 6 less feats than the fighter to build him up better or more likely 5 to drop lightning reflexes and still have better reflex saves. If the fighter changes to a bow or finesse build he could get comparable dex and up his reflex save to +19 to +21. Still worse than the ranger, but far more comparable while still maintaining a slightly higher fort and will save.

There's your save comparison for a level 20.

4) I see this comparison to NPC classes a lot when it comes to fighters. No one has yet been capable of showing this.

Silver Crusade

Coriat wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

There is never going to be any kind of fullproof evidence as to the usefulness of the fighter class. It obviously works for some groups and not for others. We can go round and round all day long with each side refuting each others argument. Apparently the designers are happy with the class so I wouldn't expect a change. It seems to fit their vision of the fighter and that's cool. If you don't like the class then either don't play it, or homebrew the class to your liking. What you shouldn't do is go around telling people who like the class they shouldn't like it because of ABC. If you like the class then continue rocking it any chance you get.

Cheers.

You were perfectly happy to make sweeping assertions before. I remember, I tried to discuss one of them but seem to have gotten no reply. Let's see...

shallowsoul wrote:


This is just theory craft that actually doesn't happen in a real game. Fighter's are consistent damage dealers while other classes rely on certain circumstances (Favoured Enemy, Evil, 5 minute work day).

But now it's all about how you can't have foolproof evidence about different groups, nothing can be shown to be true or false about the usefulness of the class, whatever.

It might be nice to pick one. Either quit posting assertions about how fighters are useful in such and such a way in 'real games,' or, perhaps, quit telling everyone else that there's no such thing as a valid assertion about fighter usefulness because every game is different?

Actually I don't have to choose anything. Fighters are extremely useful in every weekly game of PFS I play in, I've also played the game enough to recognize actual game play from theorycraft and a lot of what we see in this thread is theorycraft and hypotheticals.

We game the same old BS from the same people on these threads. It's easy as he'll to be given a scenario then go and scour the books looking for the best way to defeat it and claim that Class A can do that no problem. Same goes for someone posting a build and everyone starts throwing in these corner case scenarios that would shut Class B down.

Obviously, these "problems" don't appear as often as some make it seen because if they did, the devs would have handled it a while ago. Also, the way some of you pit your arguments as if it was in a vacuum and then claim that's how it is when it clearly is not.

I've seen the class do just fine since Pathfinder started, nobody here has ever claimed that the class is the best, , but it sure as hell isn't what some of you make it out to be.


The other thing you can do to give martials a leg up as a whole and Give fighters aa TRUE NICHE is to condense down the Greater/Improved feats. Essentially make it so that you automatically gain the "improved" feat abilities at a certain BAB (the BAB that would be required to get the feat normally). This allows all martials to be more than "I am really good at tripping... and thats it" and instead become pretty well rounded characters.

This also allows fighters to become masters of combat in all its forms. Since they have SO MANY FEATS they can easily become good at grappling, tripping, bullrushing, two weapon fighting, archery, and sword and board fighting. They would gain a niche as the guy who is good at FIGHTING... WITH ANYTHING.


Rightbackatya wrote:
When designing encounters you go by the APL/CR tables. Average challenge is APL=CR.

"Average challenge" means your party wins by expending 1/5 of their expendables. That's not "equal," it's "steamrolled" (at least, until after you hit 4 combats in a row).

An encounter your party would be equal to (i.e., win/die 50/50) would be CR = APL+4. Or two critters of CR = APL+2. Or 4 critters of CR = APL. Against 4 party members.

Against two party members, a 50/50 encounter is CR = APL+2. Against a single party member, a 50/50 encounter should be CR = APL.

QED.

Silver Crusade

Rightbackatya wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
many words

1) There isn't a reason it should be true, but it is true. How do martials emulate teleportation, time stop, creating fire out of nothing, or any other ridiculous spell. At high end the wizard gates in creatures he bribes and has his own fighter/barbarian/"insert needs here". It's not that it should be the way it is it's just that's the way the mechanics work. The trade off I think is how dependent those casters can be on other classes in the early levels to keep them alive by being meat shields although some classes are well balanced to survive alone like rangers, paladins, bards, inquisitors. In my opinion it's the middle row casters that have the most balance with martials being more effective at the early levels and waning towards the end with the opposite to be said of full casters except the power creep of casters climbs way faster than the decline of martials. So a martial can still be okay towards the end and have a place, but without magic you're in trouble.

2) Fighters gain versatility through feats and access to full chains earlier than other classes. This is one of their bonuses above others. Arguing about "points" with no baseline isn't really solving anything and is just pushing your opinion on others.

3) Thanks for the insult.

Fighter 20; 20pt buy; Human

STR 14+2 > +4 from levels, +6 belt = 28
DEX 14 > +6 belt = 20
CON 14 > +6 belt = 20
INT 10
WIS 15 > +1 from levels, +6 belt = 22
CHA 7

cloak of resistance +5
Iron will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude (still has 17 feats)

Fort +25, Ref +16, Will +19(+24 vs fear)

Ranger 20; 20pt buy; Human

STR 14 > +2 from levels, +6 belt = 22
DEX 15+2 > +3 from levels, +6 belt = 26
CON 14 > +6 belt = 20
INT 10 >
WIS 14 > +6 belt = 20
CHA 8 >

cloak of resistance +5
Iron will, lightning reflexes, great fortitude (still has 11 feats)

Fort +24, Ref +25, Will +18

So the ranger has worse fort and will, but a much higher reflex due to the good save AND being...

Can't speak for you, but when we play we get together and help each other in order to minimize everyone's weakness. Had plenty of casters learn that a greedy caster is a dead caster. Anyone in our group who plays support actually does that wild and crazy thing called supporting so if these two guys needed a hand with anything then they got the help instead of competing with each other.

BTW: There is a pair of bracers in the magic item book that gives +5 to Will saves vs Enchantment spells and they are pretty cheap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:


Fighters get lots of feats so Iron Will and Improved Iron Will shouldn't be a problem to get.

This is that false equivalence thing again. "Fighters have lots of feats so they can spend feats to cover their weaknesses" is mutually exclusive to the "Fighters get more feats than everybody else to make up for their lack of class features" argument.

Already, the Fighter has spent two feats to still have worse saves than a Ranger, and he's down to a 3 feat lead.

Bad skills? Let's take Skill Focus (Perception). 1 feat lead, and he still has worse skills than all of his martial counterparts past 3rd level or earlier.

Needs all of his stats for stuff, like pumping Dex for Armor Training or Str for hit and damage, but still wants to participate in social encounters? We'll grab Intimidating Prowess so he can add his strength to his Intimidate checks and make up some of that lost ground.

Now your lead in bonus feats is non-existent, and you're still not as good in any of the areas you shored up as most classes can be out of the box. The Ranger and Monk get to skip prereqs on their bonus feats as well, so they might even effectively be a couple feats ahead of you if they jumped otherwise useless or uncommonly used prereq feats. The Fighter just doesn't have that many more feats than other classes, and his feats generally aren't as good as class features, so he's always working at a deficit. That doesn't mean you can't play one or even have fun doing so, but it does mean that you are demonstrably worse at being an adventurer than your peers. You get about 5 levels where you can bust out a feat tree and maybe slack a little on shoring up your weak points, and then things start going downhill fast. Or rather, everyone else gets on a plane to awesome town and you're still jogging along the same old country road in normalsville.

What's funny about that is I always take Iron Will on my Rangers, and quite often other +saving throw feats like Great Fortitude and Lightning Reflexes as well, depending on what I want out of my build or my point buy. Given that I'm rewarded for Wisdom more, I get better synergy out of having a good Wisdom (it applies to a lot of my skills, spells, and saves), and I can afford a lower Int because of the 6 base skill points (which means with a 7 Int human, I'm still getting 5-6 points / level, but I could function on 4/level).

I don't have to worry about netting the almighty 15 Dex at 1st level to manage to qualify for my feats, which is even better since Paizo has backpedaled and decided that suffering ability damage affects you in every way as if your score got lower (silly FAQs), which means that if your Fighter gets nailed with a little ability damage/drain, half (or more) of your class just went offline (you get a 13 Int to grab combat expertise, improved disarm, improved trip, and improved dirty trick? 1 point of Int damage and BAM, all is lost).

The fact that I end up with the equivalent of Lightning Reflexes 3 times is nice (1st level I have +2 to Reflex, and by 20th level I have +6 more to Reflex than a Fighter), which stacks with Lightning Reflexes if I want to push it (and I might since Evasion is built into my class and can save me some cash on a ring).

Let's look at how many feats Fighters really get, and how many feats Rangers really get. For this we're going to talk in terms of equivalencies, because feats are nothing more than abilities and/or modifiers that improve your character that are part of your character.

Fighter "Feats" Score
1. d10 HD is worth Toughness x2 = +2.
2. They get +6 more Fort than a commoner, equivalent to Iron Will x3 = +3.
3. They get the minimum 2 skill points per level = +0.
4. They get 11 bonus combat feats = +11.
5. Light, Medium, and Heavy Armor proficiency, Shield Proficiency = +4.
6. Simple and Martial Weapon Proficiency = +2.
7. They get weapon training 1, 2, 3, 4, weapon mastery = +5.
8. They get armor training 1, 2, 3, 4, armor mastery = +5.
9. Bravery is bad that the entirety of it is only worth 1 feat = +1.
Total Score: 33 feat equivalents

Ranger "Feats" Score
1. d10 HD is worth Toughness x2 = +2.
2. They get +6 more Fort than a commoner, equivalent to Iron Will x3 = +3.
3. They get +6 more Ref than a commoner, equivalent to Lightning Reflexes x3 = +3.
4. They get 6 skill points per level, equivalent to Open Minded x4 = +4.
5. They get simple and martial weapon proficiency, light and medium armor proficiency, and shields = +5.
6. They get 5 bonus combat feats that they don't have to qualify for, so I'm counting them as 1.5 feat each = +7.5
7. They get Endurance as a bonus feat = +1.
8. They get Track = +1.
9. They get Wild Empathy = +1.
10. They get Favored Enemey I, II, III, IV, V = +5.
11. They get favored terrain I, II, III, IV, V = +5.
12. They get hunter's bond = +1 (probably worth +2).
13. They get Evasion and Improved Evasion = +2.
14. They get Swift Tracker = +1.
15. They get Woodland Stride = +1.
16. They get Quarry and Improved Quarry = +2
17. They get Master Hunter = +1.
18. They Hide in Plain Sight = +1.
19. They get 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spells = +4.
Total Score: 50.5

I think I'm even being kind of conservative with the Ranger a bit, since animal companions and a level of spellcasting is probably worth more than 1 feat, but it just seems like overkill at that point.


Ashiel wrote:
5. Light, Medium, and Heavy Armor proficiency, Shield Proficiency = +4.

To be fair, it's a total of +5 (Tower Shields).


TBH, with the ways spells are done currently (mostly Standard Actions, metamagic rods and better available, no particular penalties or danger associated with using them), I'm not sure what could actually be done to bring Martials in line with full casters. That being said, you could improve Fighter a fair amount by what mostly amount to numerical bumps.

Now you could pump up Fighters by (1) boosting their saves (give a fast Will progression; rename Bravery to Dauntless and make it +1 to all saves per 4 levels), (2) boosting their AC a few points (scaling +Dodge class ability +1 per 3 class levels), (3) 4+int skill points per level with a couple of class skills, (4) playing with feats to give a little more combat versatility and/or power to Fighter specifically (let them ignore stat requirements on Combat feats, and add a Fighter specific feat to get Pounce).

So now we have a Fighter who rarely fails Will saves, and so he's not a walking "DOMINATE ME" billboard. He actually has an AC advantage over the other melee classes, so he takes significantly less damage than Barbarian or Paladin. He can pick up both ranged and melee attacks if he wants, and be effective at both. He has enough skill points to not be a potato outside of combat.

In other words, make the Fighter have just enough skills to get by. Then make him better at actually ... you know, fighting (including surviving magic, and not taking damage), than other classes. He's a specialist who has chosen to pour all of his training into physical prowess, rather than diversifying into Magic. There should be a bigger payoff than there is currently.

I can almost guarantee Paizo will never do this. But I'd be curious to see a game where it was tried out.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Rightbackatya wrote:

2) Fighters gain versatility through feats and access to full chains earlier than other classes. This is one of their bonuses above others. Arguing about "points" with no baseline isn't really solving anything and is just pushing your opinion on others.

No, it's a quantifiable fact. I've discussed it at length over the year+ lifespan of this thread. If you take every class in the game and you break up the potential numeric value of their abilities into quantifiable numbers, the Fighter has less numbers. And not even marginally less numbers, but noticeably less.

You keep doing these unbalanced comparisons as well to try and establish a point, and yet you still aren't paying any attention to what people are telling you. It's really easy to skew the math in your favor when you do things like post half builds with different stat spreads.

"Look, if I dump the Fighter's Charisma farther and make the Ranger burn feats on stuff he doesn't need, the Fighter isn't as far behind!"

You've also created a Fighter who's nixed out of being able to Disarm, Feint, or Trip....

All you've done is proven that if the Fighter is built with decent system mastery and the Ranger makes inexplicably poor choices the Fighter isn't terribly worse than the Ranger.

Point 3 wasn't an insult, it was me trying to help you have the same conversation the people you're attempting to argue with are having, instead of jumping into a conversation about apples and saying "Oranges are great!".

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Ashiel wrote:

Let's look at how many feats Fighters really get, and how many feats Rangers really get. For this we're going to talk in terms of equivalencies, because feats are nothing more than abilities and/or modifiers that improve your character that are part of your character.

Paizo's established precedent is that a ranger animal companion who doesn't benefit from Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain is two feats, set by the Nature's Ally feat and prereq.

However that does a very good job of matching the 75% equivalency I talked about earlier in this thread, that is, the fact that the Fighter ends up with about 75% of the total class value of other classes.

I would agree with your statement that the Ranger in your equation is probably getting undervalued, all things considered.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What are group is trying right now to give the fighters (monks) a boost, is allowing their bonus feats, in which they are give, to be taken from the Feats Reforged (TPK Games) rules. This allows their feats to scale with them as they level, thus giving them an extra power boost that they are known to need.


Justin Sane wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
5. Light, Medium, and Heavy Armor proficiency, Shield Proficiency = +4.
To be fair, it's a total of +5 (Tower Shields).

I didn't count tower shield proficiency because it's a trap. Armor Training does nothing for it, which means past the very lowest levels it actually reduces your AC with no appreciable benefit. It cannot be made out of mithral either (and if it was it would cost a king's ransom for virtually no benefit as you'd have to determine its weight in steel first), and it imposes a -10 check penalty, and a -2 to all attacks just for wielding one.

If you want people to kill you, use a tower shield.

Silver Crusade

Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.


Ssalarn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Let's look at how many feats Fighters really get, and how many feats Rangers really get. For this we're going to talk in terms of equivalencies, because feats are nothing more than abilities and/or modifiers that improve your character that are part of your character.

Paizo's established precedent is that a ranger animal companion who doesn't benefit from Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain is two feats, set by the Nature's Ally feat and prereq.

However that does a very good job of matching the 75% equivalency I talked about earlier in this thread, that is, the fact that the Fighter ends up with about 75% of the total class value of other classes.

I would agree with your statement that the Ranger in your equation is probably getting undervalued, all things considered.

Well, the last time I broke stuff down, a lot of the "but fighters!" crowd tried to say I was being biased, so I intentionally under-valued a number of ranger abilities (animal companion is kind of like leadership-lite), didn't count the fact your companion uses your favored enemy/terrain bonuses (probably worth another feat), etc.

Nor did I bother to give a side by side comparison. For example, if you do not invest a ton of feats into the Weapon Specialization line, the Fighter actually lags behind in damage horribly (weapon training hits +4/+4 at 17th level). I mean, just going by the Fighter's class features, Weapon Training doesn't even get to +2/+2 until 9th level.

There's also the fact that large quantities of the Fighter's features are easily pirated by other classes. Effortless armor is a low level spell that gives the best parts of Armor Training X, and can be anchored on a magic item for 24,000 gp (12,000 gp if a Ranger or Paladin crafts it themselves). >_>


shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.

Skills are valuable. Our groups never have enough skills. There's always something to spend more skill points on. :P


shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.

Depending on who else is in your party, it might be useful to have your Fighter do something out of combat. And even if you don't need the social skills, it would be nice to be able to actually drop some points into "Knowledge: Dungeoneering" or "Profession: Soldier" for RP reasons if nothing else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.

I... guess you don't *need* skills, no. I mean, you don't *need* skill ranks to actually participate in, say, a negotiation, or a war meeting, or stuff like that. I mean, what kind of DM do you have that *actually* makes you roll for stuff you roleplayed? I mean, if you give out a decent description of how your muscles bulged and your veins popped when you tried to push that boulder, how dares he to ask for a STR check?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.

The more people who actually have a chance to beat a perception check the better.

The more people who can roles and succeed a Sense Motive check the better.

Being able to function as a person is kind of nice too, unless your noble fighter is in reality some mongrel who hides in corners as the adult people talk.

I heard acrobatics is a useful skill too.

Ect.

But that's ok, cause at least Fighters can... CLIMB AND SWIM.


Ashiel wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
5. Light, Medium, and Heavy Armor proficiency, Shield Proficiency = +4.
To be fair, it's a total of +5 (Tower Shields).

I didn't count tower shield proficiency because it's a trap. Armor Training does nothing for it, which means past the very lowest levels it actually reduces your AC with no appreciable benefit. It cannot be made out of mithral either (and if it was it would cost a king's ransom for virtually no benefit as you'd have to determine its weight in steel first), and it imposes a -10 check penalty, and a -2 to all attacks just for wielding one.

If you want people to kill you, use a tower shield.

It's still a feat though.

What was your break down to get the values for weapon training and armor training? +4 to hit/dmg vs all creatures all the time seems more valuable than +5 along with armor training providing full movement in full plate being the equivalent of 2 fleet feats and then however you account for the +4 to potential dex and -4 to armor check penalties. Some things really don't have feat equivalencies.

Ranger bonus feats are still just single feat regardless of not having to meet prerequisites. They don't provide any bonus beyond the feat being listed other than not having to take a prerequisite and many of them you end up taking the prerequisite anyway. 1.5 seems too high for bypassing a prerequisite as taking 2 of such feats doesn't really give you the power increase of 3 feats.

Spells should be worth more than 4 feats for sure, but this is just magic breaking martials again. A good analysis for sure showing how far behind fighters are of casting martial classes. What's it look like for a fighter vs barbarian/rogue/cavalier?


Insain Dragoon wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.

The more people who actually have a chance to beat a perception check the better.

The more people who can roles and succeed a Sense Motive check the better.

Being able to function as a person is kind of nice too, unless your noble fighter is in reality some mongrel who hides in corners as the adult people talk.

I heard acrobatics is a useful skill too.

Ect.

But that's ok, cause at least Fighters can... CLIMB AND SWIM.

Noble fighters were usually trained in etiquette and educated. This should be reflected in your stats with charisma and intelligence. Still a competent combatant, but not as good as a soldier. Smarter than a soldier and usually more charismatic, but not necessarily as agile or tough.

EDIT: And to be fair, acrobatics is a terrible combat skill. It requires a lot of investment to be okay at evading attacks. There's plenty of threads about it.

Silver Crusade

shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.

So you normally play with 5-6 PCs? That's quite a lot where I play, as I try to cap it at 4 myself. Skills do depreciate a bit with a larger group like that.

In all honesty, I would like to hear how your Fighter contributes in a normal game. I'm not trying to start an argument here, rather learn how you use the class that allows it to function in a satisfactory way. Maybe possibly see where the things that you do aren't following the exact rules of the game (which as we all know, can be rather silly), and at what levels they're participating in this fashion.

Getting a better perspective for why you see the class as balanced the way it is might be helpful in everyone's discussion so we have a better baseline for what we're attempting to do with the class.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Round two of my "proposed feats for fixing up the Fighter without invalidating existing material, creating undue power creep for other classes, or actually making any changes to the core material".
I created a line of Bravery feats that all proc off of the Bravery class feature and were intended to meet the following criteria:
* Can't invalidate Core materials by just being a better version of something that already exists.
* Can't create creep in other classes by being a net gain for everyone else as well as the Fighter.
* Should enhance the Fighter's ability to impact the world by improving his skills better than Skill Focus, without invalidating Skill Focus.
* Should create an environment where the Fighter can be good at combat maneuvers without having to invest so heavily that when the trick isn't appropriate he can't perform at or above par in combat.
* Should improve the Fighter's narrative power, or make room for abilities that do.
* Should improve Fighter's most relevant saves and abilities to resist magical effects in a way that leaves the core save feats as valid options.

This includes the feats I'd proposed earlier cleaned up and integrated into a cohesive system.

Bravery feats:

Battlefield Commander [Bravery]
Your voice rings out the clarion call of battle, fortifying the hearts and minds of those who follow you.
Prerequisites: Cha 13 or Int 13, Bravery class feature
Benefit: As a swift action, you may grant all allies who can hear your voice the benefits of your Bravery class feature for a number of rounds equal to 1 + your Intelligence or Charisma modifier, whichever is greater. If you have any feats that modify your Bravery class feature, such as the Stubborn Bravery feat, you share those benefits as well. You may use this ability 1/day plus one additional time per day for each Bravery feat you know in addition to this one.

Bull by the Horns [Bravery]
When you first heard the phrase “it’s best to just take the bull by the horns” you took it literally.
Prerequisites: Str 15, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus to CMB and CMD to perform or resist a grapple attempt, and to your AC against attacks of opportunity provoked while initiating a grapple, equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. This bonus is doubled if the grappling opponent is at least 2 size categories larger than yourself.

Courage Under Fire [Bravery]
Not even the roaring belch of a black powder weapon gives you pause.
Prerequisites: Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a dodge bonus to armor class equal to your Bravery bonus against all firearm attacks that target touch AC. In addition, as long as you are wearing medium or heavy, when a firearm attack would successfully deal damage to you, you may spend an immediate action to make an attack roll using your base attack bonus + your Dexterity modifier + your Bravery class feature bonus. If the total result of this roll is equal to or greater than the attack that would have hit you, you instead deflect the attack and take no damage. You may use this secondary ability 1/ day plus 1 additional time per day for each Bravery feat you know in addition to this one.

Daring Bravery [Bravery]
Your fearless disposition leads you to push the line when it comes to safety, running through hell’s own fires if that’s what the situation demands.
Prerequisites: Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus on Reflex saves against spells and abilities that target an area of effect, such as a fireball spell, equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. In addition, you gain a +2 competence bonus on Acrobatics checks made to move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity.

Fearsome Reputation [Bravery]
Your fearsome reputation goes before you, making it easier for you to exert authority and command respect.
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature, Charisma 11+
Benefit: You may pick a region where you are well known; this region must be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and you gain a competence bonus equal to twice the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As your reputation grows, additional areas learn of you and your bonuses apply to even more people. These new areas must be in or adjacent to an area where you performed some heroic deed, such as defeating bandits, slaying a dragon, or some other act of note. At 6th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people. At 10th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people. At 14th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people. At 18th level and above, your renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of you (GM's discretion).

Old Soldier [Bravery]
You’ve climbed mountains, swam rivers, and then fought all day at the end of it.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +3, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus on climb and swim checks equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. This bonus is doubled if you are you making the check as part of an attempt to catch a falling character while climbing or when making a swim check to avoid nonlethal damage from fatigue.

Ox Rush [Bravery]
Your powerful physique and unstoppable ferocity allows you toss lesser foes around with contemptuous ease.
Prerequisites: Str 15, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, base attack bonus +3, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus on bull rush attempts equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. Each time your Bravery bonus increases (+2, +3, etc.) the maximum size creature you can perform a bull rush against increases by one size category. In addition, you may perform a bull rush maneuver against two opponents simultaneously; make one bull rush attempt and compare it to both opponent’s CMD. If the bull rush fails against either opponent, it automatically fails against the other. The opponents must be within 5 feet of each other and you must be able to reach both opponents.

Stance of the Shifting Blade [Bravery]
By spending time in careful study and contemplation, you may achieve mastery with any weapon.
Prerequisites: Fighter level 9, Bravery class feature, Weapon Training 2 class feature
Benefit: By spending one hour testing the weight and balance of a specific weapon, you are able to form a bond with the chosen weapon and may apply the benefits of your weapon training class feature as though the weapon were of the type you selected for the weapon training 2 class feature. This applies only to the selected weapon and does not extend to other weapons of that type. You may apply this benefit to a new weapon by spending another hour in practice, but cannot have more than one specific weapon benefiting from this ability at a time. In addition, you gain a competence bonus to CMD against disarm and sunder attempts equal to the bonus granted by your bravery class feature when wielding a weapon that benefits from your weapon training class feature.

Stubborn Bravery [Bravery]
When someone tries to tell you what to do, your instinct is to do the opposite.
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature
Benefit: The bonus to Will saves granted by your Bravery class feature applies to spells and effects with the (compulsion) and (charm) descriptors, as well as the DC for an enemy to use the Intimidate skill to demoralize you.

Warrior’s Resolve [Bravery]
It takes more than dragons and liches to chase you away from the fight! Or at least, all the way…
Prerequisites: Bravery class feature
Benefit: Whenever you fail a saving throw against a fear effect, or are successfully affected by the demoralize use of the intimidation skill, you may take a swift action on the following round to make a secondary save to negate the effects. The DC to remove the effects of a demoralize check is equal to the original intimidate check. You may add the bonus from your Bravery class feature to this additional save.

Weaponmaster’s Disarm [Bravery]
You’re willing to test the limits of your weapon far beyond what any normal warrior might try, proving that it’s not the quality of your steel that matters, but the strength of the arm that wields it.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus to CMB and CMD to perform or resist a disarm attempt equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. This maneuver does not provoke an attack of opportunity if performed with a weapon that matches a type chosen for your Weapon Training class feature. Whenever you successfully disarm an opponent you always manage to bruise, nick, or otherwise inflict a little additional punishment on your enemy; any enemy you successfully disarm takes damage equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. This damage is of the same type as the weapon you performed the disarm attempt with (if unarmed or otherwise not wielding a weapon, this deals bludgeoning damage).

Weaponmaster’s Feint [Bravery]
You’re willing to test the limits of your weapon far beyond what any normal warrior might try, proving that it’s not the quality of your steel that matters, but the strength of the arm that wields it.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus on feint attempts equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. In addition, 1/day you may use Bluff to feint in combat as a swift action. You may use this ability 1 additional time per day for each Bravery feat you know in addition to this one.

Weaponmaster’s Sunder [Bravery]
You’re willing to test the limits of your weapon far beyond what any normal warrior might try, proving that it’s not the quality of your steel that matters, but the strength of the arm that wields it.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus on attempts to sunder an item currently wielded by an enemy equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. This maneuver does not provoke an attack of opportunity if performed with a weapon that matches a type chosen for your Weapon Training class feature. In addition, any weapon wielded by you adds a bonus equal to your Bravery class feature to its hardness. This benefit ends if the weapon leaves your possession.

Weaponmaster’s Trip [Bravery]
Your willingness to throw yourself at an opponent with a certain disregard for your own safety often makes it easier to drop an unwary opponent to the ground.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus to CMB and CMD to perform or resist a trip attempt equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. This bonus is doubled if the opponent you are attempting to trip, or who is attempting to trip you, is at least 2 size categories larger than yourself. This maneuver does not provoke an attack of opportunity if performed with a weapon that matches a type chosen for your Weapon Training class feature.

Silver Crusade

Justin Sane wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.
I... guess you don't *need* skills, no. I mean, you don't *need* skill ranks to actually participate in, say, a negotiation, or a war meeting, or stuff like that. I mean, what kind of DM do you have that *actually* makes you roll for stuff you roleplayed? I mean, if you give out a decent description of how your muscles bulged and your veins popped when you tried to push that boulder, how dares he to ask for a STR check?

Nothing stops a fighter from putting points in skills for RP reasons, traits allow you to make some skills into class skills. Now if you have a Bard, a rogue, and sometimes a Wizard(for spellcraft) then you don't need to invest a lot in order to aid another. Let those guys handle the most skills while everyone assists.


Aiding another and providing a +2 to a perception, sense motive, diplomacy, any other check you can aide is still useful. Just because you're not leading the party as the face doesn't mean you can't help your party outside of combat. Along with other members aiding your strength check to push that boulder and adding a +2 to your check.

EDIT: In every campaign I've ever played you sit down with your group and discuss what you'd like to play and see how it meshes. You don't show up to the table with 4 wizards. Like Shallow said you try to play characters that cover all the bases and then you all aide to enhance each members skills. A collective +6 to all skills from your other members can easily overcome most things a campaign throws at you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Cleric of light rallies the troops with a powerful religious sermon in preparation for the coming battles (roll diplo), Wizard of Intelligence holds a strategy meeting with the military officers (roll int and various knowledges), Ranger of Wisdom scouts the enemy lines and reports back his findings (roll survival+stealth), and fighter of hitting sits in a corner watching and waiting for the hitting to start!

Silver Crusade

N. Jolly wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.

So you normally play with 5-6 PCs? That's quite a lot where I play, as I try to cap it at 4 myself. Skills do depreciate a bit with a larger group like that.

In all honesty, I would like to hear how your Fighter contributes in a normal game. I'm not trying to start an argument here, rather learn how you use the class that allows it to function in a satisfactory way. Maybe possibly see where the things that you do aren't following the exact rules of the game (which as we all know, can be rather silly), and at what levels they're participating in this fashion.

Getting a better perspective for why you see the class as balanced the way it is might be helpful in everyone's discussion so we have a better baseline for what we're attempting to do with the class.

We actually sit down and discuss what everyone is playing before we start. If I want to play a fighter and I see almost if not all skills are taken care of, then I invest mostly in combat while I apply most of my skills to Swim and Climb since we all have to make those at times. I just focus on my combat whether it'a a two handed, sword and board, archery etc... You don't need skills to give good input during the course of the game and I contribute plenty in battle.

Now if I want to make a well rounded fighter then I will do so.


Ssalarn wrote:

Round two of my "proposed feats for fixing up the Fighter without invalidating existing material, creating undue power creep for other classes, or actually making any changes to the core material". I created a new line of Bravery feats that all proc off of the Bravery class feature and do things like giving the Fighter a better return on value for feats used to improve his skill capability or perform combat maneuvers. This includes the feats I'd proposed earlier cleaned up and integrated into a cohesive system.

** spoiler omitted **...

Here is my go at it. I replaced a fighter's bonus feats with 'talents', a set of options to choose from that can round a fighter out a bit better than the current set of abilities does. One of the choices for talent is 'combat feat', so technically all existing and statted fighters could be talented fighters who just chose combat feats for all of their talents.

It seems similar to your bravery feats, except perhaps slightly wider sweeping.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Cleric of light rallies the troops with a powerful religious sermon in preparation for the coming battles (roll diplo), Wizard of Intelligence holds a strategy meeting with the military officers (roll int and various knowledges), Ranger of Wisdom scouts the enemy lines and reports back his findings (roll survival+stealth), and fighter of hitting sits in a corner watching and waiting for the hitting to start!

Guess he shouldn't have dumped his stats down to 7s.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.
I... guess you don't *need* skills, no. I mean, you don't *need* skill ranks to actually participate in, say, a negotiation, or a war meeting, or stuff like that. I mean, what kind of DM do you have that *actually* makes you roll for stuff you roleplayed? I mean, if you give out a decent description of how your muscles bulged and your veins popped when you tried to push that boulder, how dares he to ask for a STR check?
Nothing stops a fighter from putting points in skills for RP reasons, traits allow you to make some skills into class skills. Now if you have a Bard, a rogue, and sometimes a Wizard(for spellcraft) then you don't need to invest a lot in order to aid another. Let those guys handle the most skills while everyone assists.

Well, a lack of skill points tends to limit putting points in skills for RP reasons.

And I'd be okay with Fighter contributing less than pretty much any other class outside of combat if Fighter contributed more than most classes in combat. But it doesn't in a world where everyone else has built their characters well.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Cleric of light rallies the troops with a powerful religious sermon in preparation for the coming battles (roll diplo), Wizard of Intelligence holds a strategy meeting with the military officers (roll int and various knowledges), Ranger of Wisdom scouts the enemy lines and reports back his findings (roll survival+stealth), and fighter of hitting sits in a corner watching and waiting for the hitting to start!

Fighter aide's the diplomacy by cheering on the troops and renewing everyone's vigor, the fighter brings his knowledge of monsters and battle to the table and aide's with the over all approach with his minor noting of good flanking maneuvers, the ranger goes alone but didn't have time to finish his gillie suit and the fighter helped with the survival roll, and then the fighter went back to soldiering and training the new recruits with weapon use and tactics.

Even untrained in knowledge skills anyone can make the most basic of checks no greater than a DC 10. Just so happens that Aide another is a DC 10. Anyone can give a +2 on knowledge checks.

EDIT: And like shallow said contribution is not measured by a meter. If it were maybe the martials should be receiving more experience in the early levels than the wizard. I've seen a level 1 barbarian cleave through 3 creatures in one round. Should he receive all the experience for those 3 creatures while everyone else gets none?

Silver Crusade

Cheburn wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.
I... guess you don't *need* skills, no. I mean, you don't *need* skill ranks to actually participate in, say, a negotiation, or a war meeting, or stuff like that. I mean, what kind of DM do you have that *actually* makes you roll for stuff you roleplayed? I mean, if you give out a decent description of how your muscles bulged and your veins popped when you tried to push that boulder, how dares he to ask for a STR check?
Nothing stops a fighter from putting points in skills for RP reasons, traits allow you to make some skills into class skills. Now if you have a Bard, a rogue, and sometimes a Wizard(for spellcraft) then you don't need to invest a lot in order to aid another. Let those guys handle the most skills while everyone assists.

Well, a lack of skill points tends to limit putting points in skills for RP reasons.

And I'd be okay with Fighter contributing less than pretty much any other class outside of combat if Fighter contributed more than most classes in combat. But it doesn't in a world where everyone else has built their characters well.

And who says a well built fighter can't contribute?

Also, contribution is not defined in the rules so there is no default meter that says you must past this to be legally contributing.

I'm always "dumbfounded" by the contribution statement. All classes contribute one way or the other. Anyone telling you different needs to actually play the game.

Silver Crusade

Cheburn wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.
I... guess you don't *need* skills, no. I mean, you don't *need* skill ranks to actually participate in, say, a negotiation, or a war meeting, or stuff like that. I mean, what kind of DM do you have that *actually* makes you roll for stuff you roleplayed? I mean, if you give out a decent description of how your muscles bulged and your veins popped when you tried to push that boulder, how dares he to ask for a STR check?
Nothing stops a fighter from putting points in skills for RP reasons, traits allow you to make some skills into class skills. Now if you have a Bard, a rogue, and sometimes a Wizard(for spellcraft) then you don't need to invest a lot in order to aid another. Let those guys handle the most skills while everyone assists.

Well, a lack of skill points tends to limit putting points in skills for RP reasons.

And I'd be okay with Fighter contributing less than pretty much any other class outside of combat if Fighter contributed more than most classes in combat. But it doesn't in a world where everyone else has built their characters well.

If you want skills then try a human fighter with a 12 int and instead of extra HP for favored class, take that extra skill point per level.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Cleric of light rallies the troops with a powerful religious sermon in preparation for the coming battles (roll diplo), Wizard of Intelligence holds a strategy meeting with the military officers (roll int and various knowledges), Ranger of Wisdom scouts the enemy lines and reports back his findings (roll survival+stealth), and fighter of hitting sits in a corner watching and waiting for the hitting to start!
Guess he shouldn't have dumped his stats down to 7s.

That Wizard dumped his Cha and got rewarded for it by being better at his in and out of combat job.

That cleric dumped his int to 7 and has a dex of 10, but that's ok because it doesn't effect his out of combat job and barely affects his in combat job.

That ranger dumped his charisma to 7, but that's ok because it doesn't effect any of his in or out of combat jobs.

Why is the figher the only one who has to suffer for dumping a stat to 7?

combatmongrel4lyfe


shallowsoul wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.
I... guess you don't *need* skills, no. I mean, you don't *need* skill ranks to actually participate in, say, a negotiation, or a war meeting, or stuff like that. I mean, what kind of DM do you have that *actually* makes you roll for stuff you roleplayed? I mean, if you give out a decent description of how your muscles bulged and your veins popped when you tried to push that boulder, how dares he to ask for a STR check?
Nothing stops a fighter from putting points in skills for RP reasons, traits allow you to make some skills into class skills. Now if you have a Bard, a rogue, and sometimes a Wizard(for spellcraft) then you don't need to invest a lot in order to aid another. Let those guys handle the most skills while everyone assists.

Well, a lack of skill points tends to limit putting points in skills for RP reasons.

And I'd be okay with Fighter contributing less than pretty much any other class outside of combat if Fighter contributed more than most classes in combat. But it doesn't in a world where everyone else has built their characters well.

If you want skills then try a human fighter with a 12 int and instead of extra HP for favored class, take that extra skill point per level.

Or take that feat that gives you both the hp and skill point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rightbackatya wrote:
Fighter aide's the diplomacy by cheering on the troops and renewing everyone's vigor, the fighter brings his knowledge of monsters and battle to the table and aide's with the over all approach with his minor noting of good flanking maneuvers, the ranger goes alone but didn't have time to finish his gillie suit and the fighter helped with the survival roll, and then the fighter went back to soldiering and training the new recruits with weapon use and tactics.
In other words, the Fighter's just an aide. Gotcha.
Ssalarn wrote:
Round two of my "proposed feats for fixing up the Fighter without invalidating existing material, creating undue power creep for other classes, or actually making any changes to the core material".

Beautiful. I would play a fighter that picked nothing but those feats.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Cleric of light rallies the troops with a powerful religious sermon in preparation for the coming battles (roll diplo), Wizard of Intelligence holds a strategy meeting with the military officers (roll int and various knowledges), Ranger of Wisdom scouts the enemy lines and reports back his findings (roll survival+stealth), and fighter of hitting sits in a corner watching and waiting for the hitting to start!
Guess he shouldn't have dumped his stats down to 7s.

That Wizard dumped his Cha and got rewarded for it by being better at his in and out of combat job.

That cleric dumped his int to 7 and has a dex of 10, but that's ok because it doesn't effect his out of combat job and barely affects his in combat job.

That ranger dumped his charisma to 7, but that's ok because it doesn't effect any of his in or out of combat jobs.

Why is the figher the only one who has to suffer for dumping a stat to 7?

combatmongrel4lyfe

The fighter dumped his charisma to 7 and boosted his intelligence to 13 thus qualifying for combat expertise making him a better combatant and having more skills increasing his usefulness outside of combat. Seems like it works fine to me.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Kain Darkwind wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Round two of my "proposed feats for fixing up the Fighter without invalidating existing material, creating undue power creep for other classes, or actually making any changes to the core material".

Here is my go at it. I replaced a fighter's bonus feats with 'talents', a set of options to choose from that can round a fighter out a bit better than the current set of abilities does. One of the choices for talent is 'combat feat', so technically all existing and statted fighters could be talented fighters who just chose combat feats for all of their talents.

It seems similar to your bravery feats, except perhaps slightly wider sweeping.

I kept them as feats because the goal was to create a fix that could click right into the existing system without using what some people might see as "wee-boo wuxia fightin' magic" or diverging from the core Fighter build that some people are happy with. Basically, address the core issues where the Fighter really is weak in a way that is thematically appropriate, keeps the Fighter "non-magical", and can click directly in to the existing chassis without any changes. Basically, something that might actually make it's way into a Paizo product instead of something that's going to get relegated to 3pp or PF 2.0. Using Bravery as a chassis just kind of made sense, because it's an absolutely terrible ability, but it provides great built-in scaling that you can hijack for other abilities.

Plus "50 Feats of Bravery" would be a kick-ass name for a .pdf, and it would be a fairly literal description of the content :P

I do like your Talented Fighter stuff though. Rogue Genius Game's Talented line is one of my favorite 3pp collections for enhancing martial characters.


Justin Sane wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:
Fighter aide's the diplomacy by cheering on the troops and renewing everyone's vigor, the fighter brings his knowledge of monsters and battle to the table and aide's with the over all approach with his minor noting of good flanking maneuvers, the ranger goes alone but didn't have time to finish his gillie suit and the fighter helped with the survival roll, and then the fighter went back to soldiering and training the new recruits with weapon use and tactics.
In other words, the Fighter's just an aide. Gotcha.
Ssalarn wrote:
Round two of my "proposed feats for fixing up the Fighter without invalidating existing material, creating undue power creep for other classes, or actually making any changes to the core material".
Beautiful. I would play a fighter that picked nothing but those feats.

Everyone is an aide next to the person that is defined to be whatever for your group. You don't have multiple party faces. You have a party face and people who help him get the highest roll. You have people that do specific things in your group and everyone else helps everyone to maximize the parties effectiveness. Having two checks of 20 isn't as good as a single check of 26.

The fighter's going to be a better survivalist than the wizard. One skill point and he gains more benefit than the wizard. So now that wizard is just useless in the wild because he can't make survival checks, but he can use his aid another action to make sure the fighters survival check is high enough to feed everyone.

Silver Crusade

shallowsoul wrote:

We actually sit down and discuss what everyone is playing before we start. If I want to play a fighter and I see almost if not all skills are taken care of, then I invest mostly in combat while I apply most of my skills to Swim and Climb since we all have to make those at times. I just focus on my combat whether it'a a two handed, sword and board, archery etc... You don't need skills to give good input during the course of the game and I contribute plenty in battle.

Now if I want to make a well rounded fighter then I will do so.

I can admit not all groups do this, I did this with the group I'm GMing, but what you've described to me is in a group that has sufficient skills, you play a Fighter that doesn't take any skills that would be duplicated, instead taking more personal skills like climb and swim.

So I ask how does this 'combat Fighter' participate in non combat situations? Again, I accept that some people aren't big into non combat situations, but it seems as though you are, so what does this more combat focused Fighter do when there's no swords swinging?


Rightbackatya wrote:
Malignor wrote:


This is meant to give mechanics to the idea that
  • The fighter was trained in a formal way, be it at an academy, or from a master/apprentice situation, or what have you. If you're looking for those who learned on their own, see the Warrior NPC class.
  • The fighter's training is in war and battle, in a world where they'll face monsters and wizards... not some mundane world which doesn't exist.
  • The training is not just about "swinging a sharp stick" but also strategy, a la Art of War. As a PC class, the fighter is elite, like an officer or a spec ops of today, and should be depicted as such.
  • High level fighters are not just "grizzled vet" versions of themselves, but the uber-warriors of legend, like Kratos, or Gilgamesh, etc.

1&2) This can already be implemented through role playing, applying stats to your character appropriate to how you role play, and taking the applicable skills or feats to make it apparent. A fighter is a master of martial combat. They swing weapons, shoot bows, wear armor. If you want a knowledge of spells or to play as a tactician you should probably invest in spellcraft and intelligence which fits the role playing aspect. A wizard can't even cast level 1 spells with a 10 intelligence so a fighter shouldn't have any working knowledge of spells and magic other than it does exist.

3) Just like you stated about the Warrior NPC class the fighter already is like an officer or spec ops of today. They're not just a warrior, but an elite warrior.

4) It's hard to depict a class as some fixture in video games or fantasies. There's not a real parallel for comparison. Your examples could very well be designed as level 20 fighters or some form of dip multiclass.

I disagree, simply because it makes no sense. An master at arms who has zero knowledge of the enemies he'll be fighting is pretty much just a corpse, and a waste of investment in training. For a rank & file fodder-grunt (NPC Warrior), I can see a lack of counter-magic and counter-monster training, because they are low-investment expendable types. But not an elite specialist (heck, not even an officer in the military) should be spared training and education on counter-magic and counter-monster tactics. It's similar to neglecting the presence of aircraft or armored vehicles in today's world.


Rightbackatya wrote:
Everyone is an aide next to the person that is defined to be whatever for your group. You don't have multiple party faces. You have a party face and people who help him get the highest roll. You have people that do specific things in your group and everyone else helps everyone to maximize the parties effectiveness. Having two checks of 20 isn't as good as a single check of 26.

If, for some reason, the wizard is out of the picture, the bard still can answer all your questions about ancient history. If, for some reason, the bard is out of the picture, the rogue can still come up with a perfectly legitimate answer when the guards ask what are you doing in the royal quarters. If, for some reason, the rogue is out of the picture, the wizard can translate that coded message.

Where does the Fighter fit in?


shallowsoul wrote:
Coriat wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

There is never going to be any kind of fullproof evidence as to the usefulness of the fighter class. It obviously works for some groups and not for others. We can go round and round all day long with each side refuting each others argument. Apparently the designers are happy with the class so I wouldn't expect a change. It seems to fit their vision of the fighter and that's cool. If you don't like the class then either don't play it, or homebrew the class to your liking. What you shouldn't do is go around telling people who like the class they shouldn't like it because of ABC. If you like the class then continue rocking it any chance you get.

Cheers.

You were perfectly happy to make sweeping assertions before. I remember, I tried to discuss one of them but seem to have gotten no reply. Let's see...

shallowsoul wrote:


This is just theory craft that actually doesn't happen in a real game. Fighter's are consistent damage dealers while other classes rely on certain circumstances (Favoured Enemy, Evil, 5 minute work day).

But now it's all about how you can't have foolproof evidence about different groups, nothing can be shown to be true or false about the usefulness of the class, whatever.

It might be nice to pick one. Either quit posting assertions about how fighters are useful in such and such a way in 'real games,' or, perhaps, quit telling everyone else that there's no such thing as a valid assertion about fighter usefulness because every game is different?

Actually I don't have to choose anything.

I don't think I suggested that you had to, but rather, that I thought it would be nice. Don't if you don't want to, I suppose.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Justin Sane wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Round two of my "proposed feats for fixing up the Fighter without invalidating existing material, creating undue power creep for other classes, or actually making any changes to the core material".
Beautiful. I would play a fighter that picked nothing but those feats.

Thanks!

I'm shooting to do enough feats that he has every maneuver, all the Fighter class skills, and as many common (and some uncommon!) combat situations as I can think of supported.

It's almost like a qinggong archetype for the Fighter that doesn't actually require an archetype.

I personally like the Bull by the Horns and Weaponmaster's Trip feats (I may change the names on the weaponmaster feats...), since one of the biggest problems with the CMB/CMD system is how size bonuses just wreck it at higher levels. By having the bonuses tied to Bravery and then doubled against creatures substantially larger than you, you get to add that "rising to the challenge" feel while simultaneously improving CMB scaling to match up better with common CMD's.


@ SSalarn. Do you mind if I use the Bravery series of feats in my home games? if you manage to get that stuff published I will totally pay for them.

Also, how about one that grants acrobatics as a class skill and helps the fighter do daring stunts (chandelier swinging, epic monster AOO dodging)

Rightbackatya wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Cleric of light rallies the troops with a powerful religious sermon in preparation for the coming battles (roll diplo), Wizard of Intelligence holds a strategy meeting with the military officers (roll int and various knowledges), Ranger of Wisdom scouts the enemy lines and reports back his findings (roll survival+stealth), and fighter of hitting sits in a corner watching and waiting for the hitting to start!
Guess he shouldn't have dumped his stats down to 7s.

That Wizard dumped his Cha and got rewarded for it by being better at his in and out of combat job.

That cleric dumped his int to 7 and has a dex of 10, but that's ok because it doesn't effect his out of combat job and barely affects his in combat job.

That ranger dumped his charisma to 7, but that's ok because it doesn't effect any of his in or out of combat jobs.

Why is the figher the only one who has to suffer for dumping a stat to 7?

combatmongrel4lyfe

The fighter dumped his charisma to 7 and boosted his intelligence to 13 thus qualifying for combat expertise making him a better combatant and having more skills increasing his usefulness outside of combat. Seems like it works fine to me.

Combat Expertise based maneuvers have terrible scaling as CR goes up. He is getting a false increase in combat power by taking that feat, wasting multiple feat slots, and only gaining skill points as a benefit. You don't see Wizards having to meet a strength minimum to use Transmutation spell prerequisites, or Clerics needing charisma to meet Planar Ally prerequisites. Combat maneuvers should have been part of the combat system, and only had feats to improve them. Not have feats to make them even useable.

And whats the fighter gonna do with his new found 3rd skill point? Put ranks in survival? Knowledge Dungeoneering? Fighters need a skill list overhaul too.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
If, for some reason, the bard is out of the picture, the rogue can still come up with a perfectly legitimate answer when the guards ask what are you doing in the royal quarters. Where does the Fighter fit in?

Prison.

3,751 to 3,800 of 3,805 << first < prev | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards